Slashdot Mirror
BBC Hails "fair" Microsoft XP SP1
Richard Bown writes "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have
this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Because it doesn't bash Microsoft?
It would have been nice of the submitter to make his case instead of just linking to the article and whining how "wrong" it is.
The owls are not what they seem
"I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN [cnn.com]. It's a bit less biased."
Less biased in Microsoft's favor != less biased overall.
Let's not forget who owns CNN nw...
Now here's the funny part. In my opinion Windows Media Player is freaking great. It's fast, it's not bloated, and it plays crap like MPEGs wonderfully. As a result, when I install a piece of software like (shudder) RealPlayer or Quicktime or (oddly enough) the new Winamp that tries to take all this back from WMP, it annoys me quite a bit. This lets me easily switch back to WMP. Same goes for IE, though rival browsers are better about that.
Also, for those of you who have problems wherein the Sun Java VM won't run certian things that the Microsoft Java VM will and vice versa (oh, the irony...) then you'll love the feature where you can chose which Java VM to use. I wonder if this will help or hurt Java in the long run...
Schnapple
This just reads like a tiny little abstract about SP1. I don't see the one-sidedness at all. It says to me 'Microsoft is being more fair than it has been'. This is true.
It doesn't try and pin a halo on Microsoft, it doesn't advocate them. It just says that they've complied with part of the DoJ bargain, and SP1 ships Sept 9th.
IMO, saying that MS is now 'more fair', reinforces that they've been completely unfair in the past. In that sense, it's a slam more than a boost.
Its just a blurb, theres not enough room to be one-sided. There's not enough to even quote.
Is it that any news item about computers that doesn't rant about 'MS world domination conspiracy theories' like a homeless schizophrenic is one-sided?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
>> "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are ...
/. and use innuendo, bias, sarcasm, unsupported assertions and unverified claims to support their own agenda? The BBC report is a straight news piece containing not a single word of BBC opinion. They're reporting on the pending XP patch that responds to the mandate of the court. If you think they should do a piece on the EULA, send them an email.
What's your problem? Do you expect a professional news organization to adopt the posture of a place like
Curious to see evidence of their "trend of giving you only half the story..".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For that matter, who is liable if I "agree" to an EULA as part of my work duties? Is my employer going to indemnify me from a lawsuit? And if they are going to put themselves on the hook, shouldn't I run all EULA's past the legal department before I agree to them? I'm not allowed to sign contracts for the company. Why am I allowed to agree to EULA's?
And if my employer isn't going to indemnify me, isn't it reasonable for me to refuse to use software whose EULA I don't like? After all, why should I expose myself to liability? Even if I was always careful to try and follow the EULA, the mere act of defending myself against a suit would almost certainly bankrupt me. It is far from reasonable for an employer to require me to enter into contracts which expose me personally to liability instead of the corporation as a whole.